Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> espoused:[color=blue]
> Open Source Patents
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| Nice, creative idea. But note a few things. First, the OIN patent pooling
>| approach relies on the patent monopoly to work, since the potential threat of
>| a patent infringement lawsuit is what induces third parties to enter into the
>| OIN license (on the other hand, without the patent monopoly, there would be
>| no reason for OIN to exist).
>|
>| [...]
>|
>| In other words, it's similar to the situation that would exist in the absence
>| of IP--without all the effort and waste to get a bunch of flaccid scraps of
>| paper.
> `----
>
> [url]http://blog.mises.org/archives/007126.asp[/url][/color]

He's right, of course, it would be much better to scrap the whole
system. It's much abused, and fails to achieve the original intent in
any case.
[color=blue]
>
>
> Related:
>
> When Patents Threaten Science
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| Patents should not be used to protect laws of nature, products of
>| nature, or mathematical formulas.
> `----
>
> [url]http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/314/5804/1395[/url][/color]

I completely agree with this. How on earth can you patent a molecule,
or an atom? An electron, say? A subatomic particle? A living
creature, a formula? Maybe someone should patent pi and see what
happens... I know it to 45 places (I was bored at school one maths
lesson), would I have to pay a licence-fee when I recite it?

____/ Mark Kent on Friday 14 September 2007 14:03 : \____
[color=blue]
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> espoused:[color=green]
>> Open Source Patents
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| Nice, creative idea. But note a few things. First, the OIN patent pooling
>>| approach relies on the patent monopoly to work, since the potential threat
>>| of a patent infringement lawsuit is what induces third parties to enter
>>| into the OIN license (on the other hand, without the patent monopoly, there
>>| would be no reason for OIN to exist).
>>|
>>| [...]
>>|
>>| In other words, it's similar to the situation that would exist in the
>>| absence of IP--without all the effort and waste to get a bunch of flaccid
>>| scraps of paper.
>> `----
>>
>> [url]http://blog.mises.org/archives/007126.asp[/url][/color]
>
> He's right, of course, it would be much better to scrap the whole
> system. It's much abused, and fails to achieve the original intent in
> any case.
>[color=green]
>>
>>
>> Related:
>>
>> When Patents Threaten Science
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| Patents should not be used to protect laws of nature, products of
>>| nature, or mathematical formulas.
>> `----
>>
>> [url]http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/314/5804/1395[/url][/color]
>
> I completely agree with this. How on earth can you patent a molecule,
> or an atom? An electron, say? A subatomic particle? A living
> creature, a formula? Maybe someone should patent pi and see what
> happens... I know it to 45 places (I was bored at school one maths
> lesson), would I have to pay a licence-fee when I recite it?[/color]

Patents are merely a mechanism for control, imperialism, and abuse. They are
created by rich people to keep the small investors away. Patents are not about
logic. They are about hierarchy.